Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lifeisstillgood

The mechanisms of state control remain unchanged - and none of them are online. The big fears of the (non-activist) population are that someone will physically take them or their children to a dark hole, and that someone they know will inform on them so that happens.

IP networks are not involved.

East Germany is probably the most obvious example in recent times - and the fear mostly came from knowing someone could inform on you. If you thought a person was going to inform on you, one would avoid them naturally.

So, if you think a computer will inform on you, you would naturally avoid it.

It seems to me that the chinese state is in a bind similar to that faced by Deng xiaoping - this thing the West does (Capitalism or Internet) is enabling them to charge so economically ahead it is an existential threat not to follow. But if we do follow the party risks losing control.

Deng did take the risk and the loss of control seemed to be offset - however this time the rifts in the party are deeper, the gulf between rich and poor wider.

I would not like to be making those choices.

> The big fears of the (non-activist) population are that someone will physically take them or their children to a dark hole, and that someone they know will inform on them so that happens.

I think you vastly underestimate the rule of law in china. This doesn't happen. Nor are general people afraid of it happening. Where are you getting this impression from?

> It seems to me that the chinese state is in a bind similar to that faced by Deng xiaoping - this thing the West does (Capitalism or Internet) is enabling them to charge so economically ahead it is an existential threat not to follow. But if we do follow the party risks losing control.

That was not the bind Deng Xiaoping faced. He took over china right after the cultural revolution which occurred right after the "Great leap forward". He had a floundering nation that he needed to jump start. State controlled capitalism is the answer to that problem, and fits well with the Socialism narrative (i.e building capital, is the first stage before sharing it).

> Deng did take the risk and the loss of control seemed to be offset - however this time the rifts in the party are deeper, the gulf between rich and poor wider.

This again misrepresents the facts. The gap between the Rich and poor, is wider, yes, but the poor are much richer now. The rifts in the party seem MUCH smaller now. China is no where near a "Cultural Revolution" now... that's how bad the rifts were then.

East Germany is NOTHING like modern China, it might have been similar around the cultural revolution, but the Stasi style informing/kidnapping/interrogating was uniquely east germany.

I think you're over-estimating the amount of control the party has or tries to enforce in China. Inside Chinese border, the amount of people who fear the party is probably in line with those who trust it -- not many.

I will happily defer to those with real knowledge of China, however the basic issue seems true - the vast, "make mockery of all that has gone before" economic growth has been exclusively driven from democratic/free nations.

If you want some of that growth, it seems logical you need to allow freedom. How much? How soon? How to stop it descending into anarchy? With a billion + lives on the line ... well I have a lot of sympathy for Presidents who go to China and then don't jump up and down screaming "become a democracy NOW"

edit: I would be interested in knowing why the down votes. I tend to delete when I reach minus figures but I am interested with what opposing view to the above others have (if it was just random expressions of dislike I will live with it.)

> If you want some of that growth, it seems logical you need to allow freedom.

Singapore.

I think Singapore is not the best example of a totalitarian dictatorship. Its an elected democracy, low coorruption, high standards of living. But yes it is "partly free" according to EIU its ranked with Hong Kong and Banglesh and a long way above Russia.

So I would still say yes, freedom does bring economic benefits. One assumes the more freedom the more benefits.

We ought to remember that at the polling stations

> We ought to remember that at the polling stations

The polling stations only represent a small part of the problem.

You know what I wish we had? A movement of common-sense intellectually honest discussion groups. Groups that are focused on media distortions and facts. Groups that are predicated on the idea that the media and politics is self-interested in promulgating drama and debate beyond what really makes sense. I would like to be part of a group that likes to look behind those curtains.

I think if one looks hard enough at an acrimonious debate, you eventually get to some kind of hard question. Despite what the media often portrays, we're often all just people trying to get to the bottom of some hard question, and we should expect people to come to different conclusions.

What you are describing is called Journalism

What we have in almost all newspapers and tv outlets is not Journalism and when it occassionally is it is not comprehensive, sustained or penetrative

I suspect that in the uk as we may or may not get so e press regulation, we shall find blogging as the protected speech and slowly find local issues becoming driven from local blogs.

It's going to be fun to watch

I tend to delete when I reach minus figures...

Is this a common practice? If you do this do you avoid the existing karma hit, or is it just to avoid going more negative yet?

I'm curious why you are conflating individual freedom with economic growth? China (and in the inverse, india) are the best examples of why you are wrong.

i.e Why is China's growth so far outstripping India's given India has more freedom?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com